Talk:John Murtha

ABSCAM section

I condensed the ABSCAM section because it was dominating the article with posted transcripts of the FBI tapes. Abe Froman 16:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the recent version was too bloviated...but now it is too whitewashed, providing little background or context on Abscam. A 5 Nov 2006 edit by arbustoo removed a section I wrote which had stood for several weeks "this quote makes it appear as if he was taking a bribe when that wasn't the case, this probably has to do with the political campaign so its been removed)" The quote removed did not make Murtha appear to be taking a bribe - he refued the bribe. In my opinion, what Murtha offered was a kickback scheme where the money would be given to Murtha's friends, the investment providing him a "justification" for the political favor...Murtha rejected the cash bribe because he was not familiar enough with the people, and someone might talk in the future which Murtha thought would derail his ambitions to be in "the f---ing leadership of the house."Blcartwright 06:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made some changes to this section in order to help it more closely conform to NPOV standards. I know this is a contentious issue, and I do not want to initiate any edit warring, so I will explain myself: 1) Formerly the last sentence of this section's second paragraph contained an approximation of the following phrase in relation to Murtha's "bragging": "his ability to direct money where he chooses, and notes a specific bank for this purpose." Murtha does positively estimate his own prowess as a congressman in the video, however the meaning of his comments regarding money are not clear, and in general his comments pertaining to his efficacy do not refer to money. Furthermore although he alludes to specific banks he does not at any point in the video name or identify them. I changed the sentence to accurately reflect the content of the video. 2) The phrase "the very premise of the investigation" in the first sentence of the third paragraph seemed to imply that the FBI eventually concluded that Murtha was demonstrably guilty of exactly what they had investigated him for. It is patently false to state that the FBI was investigating Congressmen who hoped to secure foreign investment in their districts. That is a legal activity and in many cases part of a Representative's job description. The phrase was misleading, so I removed it. 3) The following statemtent and link are redundant, so I removed them: Full length viewing of the tape reveal Murtha citing prospective investment opportunities that could return "500 or 1000" miners to work.[1] 4) In general, the video is clearly inconclusive. Whether Murtha was hoping to fool the operatives, to coax them into an arrangement that would be legal without insulting them for their crassness, or he was hoping to fool the system, to coax a bribe from the operatives that would not seem like a bribe to anyone else, the point is that there are no clear tracks. Any assessment that lends an impression that Murtha is either guilty or innocent is un-encyclopedic. 4) On this talk page there are 3 different sections devoted to ABSCAM. Perhaps they should be combined.Brrryan 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I followed the Link to the American Spectator and it DOES NOT say what was said in the article. This is misrepresentation, at its worse! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpringerRider (talk • contribs) 22:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the article Brrryan. However, since this has its own article it would be best to cut down this section to a summary and let the link take care of the rest. The posted links to youtube videos are against policy if I remember correctly. Also, I am going to remove the unsourced statements. Jasper23 20:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Rednecks and Racists

Why is any mention of John Murtha's documented, sourced statement that his constituents are 'rednecks' and 'racists' always removed from this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.209.2 (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably because there's no reason for including it. This last time it looks like it was removed because it was accompanied by an unsourced editorial opinion or speculation. Wikipedia articles aren't editorials for making a point. If you want to present a fact and it's relevant, then present it without comment. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added it with AP citation. If you remove it again, I'd love to hear your new justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.209.2 (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It has now been removed three times in a row by drive-by editors claiming it's "irrelevant". It is relevant, as it is factual, and sourced. Stop removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.209.2 (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You have yet to give a single argument or justification for why you feel this belongs in the bio. Why don't you start by explaining your reasons for adding it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it is a factual and significant occurrence in the life of a political figure. I'm far more interested in hearing your reasons for repeatedly deleting it. Why are you censoring the content that reflects negatively on this man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainiacgames (talk • contribs) 23:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, you still have not given a single argument for why this is important enough to include in the biography (and remember that the burden is on you to demonstrate why this material should be added). It appears that your reasons have nothing to do with expanding the biography and everything to do with adding, as you put it "content that reflects negatively on this man." Please read WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP and don't attempt to add this again until you can achieve consensus for doing so. Thanks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

So when it comes to adding content to articles about Democrats, Wikipedia is a democracy (actually, more of an oligarchy, as I apparently have to appease the masters before adding factual content)? Why don't you just stop pretending this site is in any way unbiased. Facts don't require a majority vote for inclusion. The fact is that he said it, it was a major event (it was covered by the media and discussed quite a bit, and was pointed out as a factor in the closeness of the election). Those all seem sufficient justification for inclusion in what is supposedly a factual, unbiased summary of a political figure's public life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.209.2 (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am in Johnstown pa guys..im fine with the Murtha redneck comment being in..but it should also be added..that his comment is largely true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.46.89 (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Did he just pass away?

74.107.124.127 (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, AP confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.137.128 (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed biography status to non living and active politician status to no. Safiel (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The reference to Now Footnote (12) does not cite the contents of the article. It is misleading in that it leads the reader to believe that American Spectator is making the statement to the author. This is BS. Wikipedia has been overtaken by left-wing scum. See you sissies in November.

SpringerRider —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpringerRider (talk • contribs) 05:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Is what various politicians said about him following his death really belong in the biography article. It seems to give undue weight to the statements - they have nothing to do with his biography, just opinions various leaders had of him. The last paragraph of the "Death" section reads more like an obituary than an encyclopedia. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

POV

The entire political career section is controversies and the like, therefore a POV or undue tag is appropriate until this is addressed. Given the limited length of the actual biography, this much information is a problem. Grsz¹¹ 14:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Meh. I don't know. It's one of the hazards of being a legislator - they make the news, and things get exciting, when something goes wrong. Our article probably reflects the balance of coverage out there fairly well, as well as the more memorable moments of Murtha's political career, especially as he doesn't have any "iconic" laws that I know of. Ray^Talk 17:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Congressional Images

Over the next few days, we should upload as many images from Murtha's official website to Commons. (They are all Public Domain.)--Blargh29 (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

How inquisitive must we be?

His infection is heresay. Not only is it an unnamed source but that source did not examine Murtha. Is this potentially smearing the good name of the gallbladder surgery department of the Naval Hospital?

It just depends on how much a tabloid Wikipedia wants to be. Clearly, Wikipedia, at times, tries to enforce BLP so that it is not a rampant tabloid. But how about being extra responsible and not using heresay reports? I don't have an opinion except that I recognize that it is a potential issue.

It is possible that he had surgery then got the H1N1 flu and died. We have no non-heresay reports of the cause of death but one will probably surface in a week or two.

Keep in mind this ---- but declined to reveal additional details, citing his family's request for privacy and federal privacy laws. from http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/08/john.murtha.obit/index.html?hpt=T1

IF we want to have the highest level of reporting, consider not this:

Murtha was first hospitalized with gallbladder problems for a few days in December 2009, and had surgery January 28 at Bethesda Naval Hospital, where "doctors inadvertently cut Mr. Murtha's intestine during the laparoscopic surgery, causing an infection."[68] Due to the complication, he was again hospitalized two days later, and died on the afternoon of February 8, 2010, in the Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington, Virginia with his family by his side.[69]

but this:

Murtha was hospitalized with gallbladder problems for a few days in December 2009 and had surgery January 28 at Bethesda Naval Hospital. He was again hospitalized two days later, and died on the afternoon of February 8, 2010, in the Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington, Virginia with his family by his side.[69] The National Naval Medical Center did not release further details citing requests from Murtha's family and federal privacy laws.[69] Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm comfortable with the text as written, which it cited to two WP:RS, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette and CNN.--Blargh29 (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• I am also comfortable with the text as written, i.e. with the cause of death, which was published in reliable sources. Nearly everything said out of court is hearsay, so deleting on that basis would reduce Wikipedia almost to a collection of judicial transcripts. The privacy law (HIPAA) limits to some degree what the providers can disclose, but sources appear to be unanimous that the cause was a complication from surgery, specifically a post-op bacterial infection (not H1N1 or a bolt of lightning). I respect the family's desire for privacy, and the article does not go into any details concerning their vigil during his last days, but cause of death is generally public information even for private citizens, and especially for a public figure. Also, WP:BLP applies to individual persons, not a whole hospital department; besides, healthcare-associated infections are a very common cause of death in U.S. hospitals, so it says more about the state of American healthcare generally than about one particular department.TVC 15 (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets wait, this is not an opportunity to say something about the state of health care, we don't need to report these claims, we are lucky in that we don't have to sell newspapers, lets wait for the confirmed details and not report the she said he said reportedly that the doctor did it, its simple enough, he had an operation and went back in and died.Off2riorob (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to sell newspapers, and I've added a link to CNN saying the procedure is routine and quoting a prominent surgeon (president-elect of the American College of Surgeons) saying the cause of death was "certainly...a surgical error." No one has denied it, so this isn't even a "he said, she said." The subject was a public figure, so the cause of death is definitely notable. According to the linked CNN article, Murtha "was admitted to Virginia Hospital Center's Intensive Care Unit because of major complications from surgery, the hospital [where he died] said in a statement."TVC 15 (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I am becoming more satisfied that this is not a case of sensationalized heresay because more sources are reporting infection as the cause, not just a disgruntled patient's family. But there is also more because I read that the parliamentarian was so stoic that he was on his death bed for 3 days before seeing a doctor, which was way too long. If he was a complainer, he would have been complained after 1 or 2 days and he would have probably lived according to the TV doctor. Also mentioned more vaguely online..CNN.. If the patient begins taking antibiotics immediately when that happens, that could solve the problem, but if the perforation goes unnoticed and several days pass, the infection can get worse and result in death, Wu said....Another possibility is that the heat probe could have injured the intestine, and later the area that got burned could have opened up and leaked, Britt said...."At the end of the day, if you don't have it done and you have a diseased gallbladder, you're talking about a very high complication rate and a possibility of death," he said. Poor man. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That source http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/09/murtha.gallbladder.surgery/ also says that a heat probe could have caused it, not an actual cut. So saying it was a cut and saying that it was an unnamed source in Murtha's office is possible inaccurate.

Thanks for pointing out both of those; I had noticed them also, which is why the text evolved from quoting "cut" to saying "damaged" (whether it was a cut or a burn, it was "certainly...a surgical error"). However, the Virginia hospital record says he was admitted specifically for complications just two days after surgery, so I don't think it's fair to blame the victim for a 3-day delay that didn't occur.TVC 15 (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it really a surgical error? Complication may be a better word? See http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/07/17/ep.surgical.errors/index.html where surgical errors are like cutting off the wrong leg. A heat probe, whatever that is, might have a known adverse event rate. An earthquake is not an error. It is a known event that is known to happen once in a while. The whole point of this discussion is to be as accurate and scholarly as possible. It's easy to write tabloid type and shocking articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The nice thing is that the article now follows this so no change needed. Wrap up discussion? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)